search

kelseyhightower / nocode

The best way to write secure and reliable applications. Write nothing; deploy nowhere.
Apache License 2.0
60.96k stars 4.72k forks source link

Use 'unlicensed' license instead of 'apache2' #33

Open spuder opened 6 years ago

spuder commented 6 years ago

An unlicensed licensed makes more sense than the apache2 license

http://unlicense.org/

https://help.github.com/articles/licensing-a-repository/#disclaimer

vuldin commented 6 years ago

While we are on the topic of changing the license, I wanted to bring up an unfortunate issue I found that relates to this project. I'm finding many lines that are copied directly from at least one of my projects in particular. I'm in no way upset by this, aside from the fact that the license I used in my project is GPL-3.0.

My project is here, and you can see that the following lines appear in every code file I've checked so far in this project: https://github.com/vuldin/scuttlebot-ws/blob/b11b77d7be3674e7e1bd76ccad1c810b427f19a4/index.js#L5 https://github.com/vuldin/scuttlebot-ws/blob/b11b77d7be3674e7e1bd76ccad1c810b427f19a4/index.js#L19 https://github.com/vuldin/scuttlebot-ws/blob/b11b77d7be3674e7e1bd76ccad1c810b427f19a4/index.js#L24

And these are not the only lines (just the ones I've found so far). If the lines were at least changed slightly it would be one thing, but I think we can all agree they are identical. Due to this I think it's only fair that minimum requirement would be to dual license the current version of the project as GPL-3.0 (and whatever else you want), as is the case here: https://github.com/vuldin/scuttlebot-ws/blob/b11b77d7be3674e7e1bd76ccad1c810b427f19a4/package.json#L11

Aside from that, I'm flattered that you would think my project in good enough shape to reuse parts of it. And awesome work on all the rest of you project! I'll definitely be looking in to contributing more in the future.

Let me know if I should submit a PR for this change.